|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 20, 2007 10:52:44 GMT -5
...in an interview for a publication called "Grist," Al Gore was asked if he is creating more fear or hope with his approach to global warming...
here is his answer...
"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is..."
interesting...this is the same man who accuses other folks of "fear-mongering" and "lying" when they say stuff like that...
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 20, 2007 11:14:26 GMT -5
...in an interview for a publication called "Grist," Al Gore was asked if he is creating more fear or hope with his approach to global warming... here is his answer... "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is..." interesting...this is the same man who accuses other folks of "fear-mongering" and "lying" when they say stuff like that... Call me crazy but when someone uses the Rush Limbaugh term "Algore" red flags go up. Is it just possible that this quote could be taken out of context and misrepresented to distort what Gore actually said? Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix? A: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis. Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 20, 2007 15:44:15 GMT -5
All that quote 'in context' does is to be even more illustrative of the fact that Algore, Al Gore or 'Pope Algore I' is a fraud.
F-R-A-U-D.
Let's perform an experiement, shall we?
Let's say that a President of a certain political party believes that a certain dictator in a certain dangerous part of the world represents a threat to this nation and it's interests. Let's say that this belief is predicated at least in part on the intelligence gathered by a President of the opposition party. Let's say that, in order to make his case before the American people, this hypothetical President puts forth a worst-case scenario that envisions a potentially catastrophic outcome if we do nothing.
Let's say that a former Vice-President stakes his political future on a given issue. Let;s further say that, in order to overcome the "Category 5 denial" and convince the American people that the problem is real and the outcome potentially catastrophic, that former Vice-President outlines a worst-case scenario that envisions a potentially cvatastrophic outcome if we do nothing.
Of course, neither one of those scenarios are in any way hypothetical.
Yet one- the first- is portrayed as a cause for impeachement while the second one is cause for 'canonozation'. The first is referred to as :overhyping" or "cherry-picking" while the second is called "prudent" and "far-sighted". It is yet another example of a dishonest double standard in place that judges conservatives and/or republicans by one set of standards and liberals and/or Democats by another.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 20, 2007 18:00:30 GMT -5
exactly....putting it in context makes it worse if anything....
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 20, 2007 18:03:48 GMT -5
the bottom line is that Al Gore refuses to discuss the SCIENCE....he thinks having a NASA scientist on his political side puts the science on his side....he is wrong.....
if he had 800,000,000 scientists on his side, and 1 against him, the 1 might still be right....
science is experimentation and repeatability....not consensus...not a difficult concept to understand, but many don't....and those many are in media and Congress....
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 20, 2007 18:06:31 GMT -5
and read more carefully, Blondie....
i referred to Al Gore's LANGUAGE as Algorese, and to him as Al Gore....
are you a bit hypersensitive?? is that shoulder chip getting a bit heavy???
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 20, 2007 20:00:17 GMT -5
Um,
I think everyone is forgetting that I'm in the mainstream and you're in the lunatic fringe.
The Attack Machine is pretty moderate for a right-wing radio show on an extremely nutty right-wing radio station.
Just thought we needed a little perspective before we drift too far into Bizarro world.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 20, 2007 20:11:45 GMT -5
if he had 800,000,000 scientists on his side, and 1 against him, the 1 might still be right.... Yeah, but that's 800,000,000 to one. Actually a lot more unlikely than that if you think about it.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 20, 2007 21:10:16 GMT -5
I think everyone is forgetting that I'm in the mainstream and you're in the lunatic fringe. I never have been attracted much by "mainstream" thinking...is that like "bandwagon"?? and your perception of opinion is interesting...either "mainstream" or "lunatic fringe"?? Please just try to comprehend a simple point...SCIENCE is not determined by consensus, "mainstream," or majority...
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Mar 20, 2007 21:37:05 GMT -5
The only reason that more people believe the eco-hysterics is that they've been very successful at choking off debate- and yes there isa debate- while accusing the other side of doing the very same thing.
I pointed out that at a debate recently in New York, the majority of the audience went into the debate believe in anthropogenic global warming. These very same people after the debate no longer believed in anthropogenic global warming.
Now true that's only one instance, but I think it points out what could be a very disturbing trend if the eco-hysterics allow the debate- and yes there is a debate- to be conducted on a wider basis: that they cannot prevail in a free and open discussion and debate on the facts.
So Gore refuses to debate anyone on the issue and scientists go before the Senate and cry that they have been 'muzzled'- apparently, having your work referenced some 1500 times is being 'muzzled'- and the public is being asked to believe many of these same scientists who predicted we'd be in the throes of an ice age by now.
I see that not only Christians are forced to rely on faith for things they cannot explain scientifically....
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 21, 2007 4:36:17 GMT -5
you are correct..."reliance on faith" is definitely NOT restricted to Christianity...atheism ends up there also...
Neither Christians, nor atheists, nor scientists, can give a scientific explanation of the ORIGIN of life (at least none of them have yet)
so...yes...that leaves it to our faith to produce the explanation...
I cannot show scientifically the concept of "intelligent design," but I have yet to see that anything about that concept is a violation of any scientific principle...
but a conclusion is not "scientific" just because it is "not unscientific"...
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 21, 2007 8:11:19 GMT -5
Please just try to comprehend a simple point...SCIENCE is not determined by consensus, "mainstream," or majority... Right. If you know what science is based on you'll agree with me about the GW debate. You seem to be implying that pseudo-science and science are the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 21, 2007 9:31:41 GMT -5
I cannot show scientifically the concept of "intelligent design," but I have yet to see that anything about that concept is a violation of any scientific principle... Same can be said for Solipsism. Scientific claims have to be falsifiable or they're just philosophical speculation. ID proponents want to teach it as science...which it's not. This is from the decision in the Dover trial: "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 21, 2007 10:20:18 GMT -5
[ID proponents want to teach it as science...which it's not. Damn, Blondie...I stated precisely that it is NOT science! And I have no desire to teach it as such, and will not support efforts to do so... But...inherent in that admission is that there is NO scientific explanation for the ORIGIN of life...so I also do not accept any form of evolution as an explanation for the ORIGIN of life... I accept some aspects of evolution as scientific reality, because I (or someone) can perform the same experiments Darwin did, and get the same results...those experiments show the reality of changes that occur from environmental influences...but those experiments do not touch the hem of the garment to explain ORIGIN of anything... and, by the way..."pseudo-science" is an oxymoron...if it is "pseudo" (false), then it isn't "science" (knowledge)...
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 21, 2007 10:55:13 GMT -5
But...inherent in that admission is that there is NO scientific explanation for the ORIGIN of life...so I also do not accept any form of evolution as an explanation for the ORIGIN of life... That's good because evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life. That's abiogenesis.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 21, 2007 11:38:02 GMT -5
That's good because evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life. That's abiogenesis. then I suppose we agree that THAT doesn't have any business in science books either...
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 21, 2007 11:57:42 GMT -5
That's good because evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life. That's abiogenesis. then I suppose we agree that THAT doesn't have any business in science books either... Abiogenesis involves chemistry and can be measured. It's a science. www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/AbiogenesisID isn't even a coherent hypothesis. What is intelligence? Does it exist outside a brain? What is design? Design usually involves arranging things that already exist. Work out these fundamental philosophical issues first.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 21, 2007 12:05:39 GMT -5
Blondie...from your link...
Abiogenesis is the proposal that life emerged from non-life. It can be viewed as a special form of spontaneous generation (see "The Origin of Life: Philosophical Perspectives," published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1997, by Michael Ruse). Instead of life arising from non-life on a regular and observable basis, abiogenesis proposes life arising from non-life at some particular point in the ancient, unobservable past.
Where in the HELL do you get the idea that that is chemistry??? It clearly states that it is a "proposal" then goes on to talk about how it "can be viewed."
Seems maybe I'm not the only one who needs to "work out philosophical issues."
Show me one measurement that ANYONE has done that points to "life emerging from non-life."
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 21, 2007 12:22:31 GMT -5
ID isn't even a coherent hypothesis. Of course it isn't...certainly not coherent to you... It is not an hypothesis at all, coherent or not...it cannot be tested...it is simply an expression of human logic (and yes, faith) that says that something cannot come from nothing... it is no more or less coherent than the "proposal" that "life emerges from non-life"...well...to me it is more coherent, but that's not science...
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 21, 2007 14:51:53 GMT -5
I just heard it again...
A declaration the the "scientific debate" of global warming is "over."
That raises a few questions...
1. When did it start? 2. What were the resolutions? 3. Who were the debaters? 4. Where did it take place? 5. Where is it documented?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 21, 2007 15:25:24 GMT -5
Where in the HELL do you get the idea that that is chemistry??? The modern definition of abiogenesis is concerned with the formation of the simplest forms of life from primordial chemicals. chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Abiogenesis
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 21, 2007 16:40:58 GMT -5
The modern definition of abiogenesis is concerned with the formation of the simplest forms of life from primordial chemicals. That doesn't make it chemistry... Turn that "concern" into an experimentally repeatable LINK, THEN you have chemistry...
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 21, 2007 21:45:30 GMT -5
The modern definition of abiogenesis is concerned with the formation of the simplest forms of life from primordial chemicals. That doesn't make it chemistry... Turn that "concern" into an experimentally repeatable LINK, THEN you have chemistry... I don't understand what you're trying to say. I'm getting used to a weird nit-picky way of arguing on this board. Abiogenesis is being studied by chemists. What's you're point? That nobody knows how "life" began? I agree with that. My only point about this was that evolution doesn't deal with how "life" began.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 21, 2007 22:08:54 GMT -5
Yes...I agree that it is weird and nit-picky for me to address your comments and the words you use in them...
so that makes me weird, nit-picky, lunatic fringe, lying to children, nakedly dishonest creationist.....anything else from your objective mindset? oh yeah...a proponent of "incoherent hypotheses"...
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 22, 2007 8:36:46 GMT -5
so that makes me weird, nit-picky, lunatic fringe, lying to children, nakedly dishonest creationist.....anything else from your objective mindset? oh yeah...a proponent of "incoherent hypotheses"... If you are a creationist you're not necessarily weird, nakedly dishonest or lying to children. You might just be an ignorant victim. One of those children that was lied too.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 22, 2007 9:06:02 GMT -5
If you are a creationist you're not necessarily weird, nakedly dishonest or lying to children. You might just be an ignorant victim. One of those children that was lied too. Looks like you finally figured me out...so it's "abiogenesis" to my rescue? That "proposal" that "chemists" are "researching" ? You are absolutely right...I will abandon all logic of intelligent design for the highly non-ignorant position that life could possibly originate from non-life!! What could have possibly taken me so long to find this out!! Praise ......(oops, I can't say that any more, can I)
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 22, 2007 9:20:53 GMT -5
Blondie...
Since you have done me such a great favor of "rescuing" me from the teaching of my youth, I would like to return the favor...
I am praying (oops, scratch that) hoping that you will some day mature to the point that you will realize that people who disagree with you are not necessarily ignorarant, lunatic-fringe victims that have total misunderstanding of the world around them...
That has seemed to be your main point of argument in virtually every post...
At the very LEAST, get with one of your trusted scientist friends (or enemy for that matter), and take one of your famed objective looks at the scientific method...even the version that you consider not to be a creationist's lie to children...
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Mar 22, 2007 11:39:21 GMT -5
Blondie... Since you have done me such a great favor of "rescuing" me from the teaching of my youth, I would like to return the favor... I am praying (oops, scratch that) hoping that you will some day mature to the point that you will realize that people who disagree with you are not necessarily ignorarant, lunatic-fringe victims that have total misunderstanding of the world around them... That has seemed to be your main point of argument in virtually every post... At the very LEAST, get with one of your trusted scientist friends (or enemy for that matter), and take one of your famed objective looks at the scientific method...even the version that you consider not to be a creationist's lie to children... You're welcome to familiarize yourself with the old evolution/creationist debate that's been over for some time. It's fun to see how the creationists never update their arguments no matter how old and discredited they become: www.amazon.com/Evolution-Fossils-Still-Say-No/dp/0890511128www.amazon.com/Genesis-Flood-Biblical-Scientific-Implications/dp/0875523382Then feel free to learn how the creationists reinvented themselves as the ID movement. Then see how dishonestly they represented themselves. Evolution is a fact as real as anything else in science. The only thing interesting in the "debate" is the psychological make-up of the creationists. I'm familiar with the scientific method and the creationists' misrepresentation of it. I really don't understand what you're trying to say. You don't believe evolution and climatology is science? Is that it?
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Mar 22, 2007 16:56:14 GMT -5
Blondie...please get it right.... I have not wasted one word "arguing" creationism with you...I don't know how else I can say it...creationism is a matter of my faith and not science....can you get that? and yes...i admit that makes me (in your mind) ignorant, lunatic fringe material who is lying to kids....ok....now get off of that, and lets get back to science.... stop throwing links at me....once again , I am NOT trying to convince you of ANYTHING...other than to get you to LEARN the SCIENTIFIC METHOD....that has NOTHING to do with creationism vs. abiogenesis.... I see now you are impugning my psychological make-up, so I guess I can add that to the list....and the only reason you would suggest that I don't believe evolution and climatology is science is because you cannot read....
|
|
|
Post by family1st on Mar 22, 2007 17:51:22 GMT -5
BAAAAAA.....BAAAAAAA.
|
|